Obamatons and UPDATE

If you want to explain in a nutshell what is the resistance to Obama on the part of many Clintonites, it’s not Obama, but it’s the most vehement of the Obama supporters, within the general public and within the press. The longer this goes on, the more and more the Obamatons get Obamanable. And it doesn’t matter that after three days or so of, for example, Obama’s supporters saying Hillary should drop out that finally Obama comes in as the voice of reason to end that line of discussion. The damage is done.

But seriously, this post is really about nothing besides testing out the word obamanable and seeing how it flies. Obamaton I also like. I’ve heard Obamabots, but obamaton is my own invention, and I think it has more wit. But I would.

On a yet more serious note, Matt Yglesias said something the other day that I think is very true. The cliche that the Democrats are agonizing over the choice between two very strong and attractive candidates is false. Obama and Clinton are both very weak candidates. And all this arguing here and elsewhere about which is most electable may ultimately be off the mark. We may be dealing with two candidates who can’t get elected, and our argument is really over which one is worse. Which is really not quite an important argument after all.

Update: To my distress, though “obamaton,” “obamanation” and “obamanable” were all independently arrived at by moi, “obamaton,” which I first used in February, was first coined by someone in January; likewise obamanable and obamanation, which I coined yesterday and was so excited as to devise a post even though I had nothing to say (as you all, I’m sure, noticed), were also first used some time in January.

So I didn’t invent these terms. I’m more like DW Griffith, who put the previously arrived at language to its first sophisticated use.